Economy

[Gabrielles blades]

Perhaps unions were the reason why they move the jobs overseas - but its a very short sighted policy since those jobs are of course no longer paying americans and so it siphons money out of the economy. Government should have dissallowed this and instead forced the unions and the bosses to come to an agreement.

thats 3-5 years if you spent almost every penny earned towards paying back the loan; i know many people who have had their student loans 15 or more years because they have to of course pay for their mortgage, kids, utility etc.

Lowest gas prices in the world correct, but lets see...around 9.4 million barrels a day imported, times whatever the going rate is - lets say 100 bucks, so thats 940 million dollars a day leaving the country. Now 365 days a year...and we get somewhere around 340,000 million right? Well if the auto industry made 100 mpg cars instead of 30 mpg ones we would cut that by 70% or so.

I dont think everyone should have health insurance, instead i think everyone should have health care; cut out the middle crook. Just have gov run hospitals. We already have them, but theyre only for prisoners which one man apparently has taken advantage of recently.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer So? Mortgage Loans are NOT insurmountable amounts UNLESS you overextend OR something changes your financial situation. I've already paid off ONE 30 year mortgage, and I'm on my second house and a new mortgage, and I'm not unique. Millions of people do it. In fact, it normally becomes easier to handle the mortgage as time goes on because the payments are fixed (ARMs excepted of course) but your income escalates over time.

So? You need to go watch some of these teabagger interviews. I am stating something that might seem obvious to me, because alot of these people do not believe in any debt at all. Just driving the point home that most people have debt far beyond anything that could imagine being able to pay today.

I wasn't advocating being debt-free. You can't buy a house without assuming debt unless you're one of the unclean super rich and trust me THEY do NOT pay cash. But there is HUGE difference between being debt-free and managing debt responsibly! You don't see something wrong with people continuing to pile on debt when they are already over-extended? Or in overextending in the first case?

Good, because I thought for a second you might be advocating being debt-free, like these nudnicks on the right who think it is feasable for a country or person to have no debt. The same people who cared nothing for the death 5 years ago as the economy was buckling before their eyes. As for overextending in the first place, well I spoke on this in my post. There are times this is warranted. Desperate times, like the ones we live in. We're not economists and we cannot speak to the ins & outs of it like we know how to fix it. If we really had the answers we would have much higher-paid jobs than we already do. But phrases like "lower taxes", "don't borrow from Peter to pay Paul" only sound logical to those who do not know any better. Like they know something we don't know, please. It's almost like those Jehovah witnesses who come to your door to tell you how misguided and mistaken you are, asserting that they know the answers but nobody else does.

When did the concept of living within your means cease to have meaning? And that same principal should apply to the government.

When the world stopped living within their means. When credit card companies arrived. When people see shiny things and buy them. It may be impractical but let's not pretend it to be uncommon, lol. People are slobs with their money. Slobs I tell you!

Oh geez. Look at the chart. Those nominal rates have been dropping since 1980. Obama is simply one of MANY presidents who have continued the trend. He hardly deserves a gold star for that. And they actually hit their LOWEST rate under, wait for it, BUSH in 2007!

Oh Geez is right. Look at my post. I said under Obama they have continued to diminish. My request remains the same: please tell FOX News and the Tea Party this. The rhetoric is all about his elitist taxes that cripple the MC. That's why these MC people are all out there with whacky hats and signs that make no sense.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior You need to go watch some of these teabagger interviews. I am stating something that might seem obvious to me, because alot of these people do not believe in any debt at all. Just driving the point home that most people have debt far beyond anything that could imagine being able to pay today.

I really don't care what the teabaggers think at all. Period. The teabaggers weren't in the original video and unless one of us is a closet teabagger who hasn't come out yet, exactly HOW is anything they say germane to this discussion? Does the fact that in your estimation the tea baggers have it wrong lend any special weight to the BS spouted by Mr Follow the dots in the video? Don't think so.

In all honesty, I really don't get your point about mortgage debt being insurmountable, and quite frankly I think it's wrong. I can tell you that 99.75% of all credit worthy mortgage holders do NOT think it's insurmountable. The other 0.25% might agree since that's the current default rate for non sub prime mortgages.

As for overextending in the first place, well I spoke on this in my post. There are times this is warranted. Desperate times, like the ones we live in. We're not economists and we cannot speak to the ins & outs of it like we know how to fix it. If we really had the answers we would have much higher-paid jobs than we already do.

Okay, there are specific situations where overextending might be warranted for specific individuals. But the majority of people EVEN in this economy are NOT overextended. True there are more people in trouble but that is due primarily to the sub-prime mortgages and people who REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO BORROW THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE BEING APPROVED FOR MORTGAGE LOANS DUE TO RELAXED LENDING STANDARDS.

In April of 2011 the default rate for first mortgages fell from 2.16% to 2.09%. This is the lowest default rate since September of 2007.

That's ~98% of mortgages that are NOT in default. Granted, that's statistically about 9 times higher than the normal default rate of 0.25% for credit worthy mortgages. THAT's the impact of sub-prime mortgages. What's amazing is that the vast majority of the sub-prime mortgage holders manage to stay about water.

"don't borrow from Peter to pay Paul" only sound logical to those who do not know any better. Like they know something we don't know, please.

And what happens when the people who are lending you all this money start to say "Uhhh, sorry, no more - your credit is no good." Do you honestly think this debt merry-go-round can continue forever?

When the world stopped living within their means. When credit card companies arrived. When people see shiny things and buy them. It may be impractical but let's not pretend it to be uncommon, lol. People are slobs with their money. Slobs I tell you!

Nonsense. The majority of people can and DO live within their means - always have and probably always will. Not everyone certainly - there ARE some people who can NOT manage their money, but that's ALWAYS been true too.

Homeowners who took advantage of their equity and added a second mortgage through a strategic refinance in order to get cash for medical bills, home improvements, cars, and other large expenses have ended up in many cases with proportionally more debt than their homes are worth. While I can see the need to cover unforseen medical bills and possibly major home repairs, taking out a second for a car, vacation, swimming pool or some other "gotta have it item" is criminally stupid. THAT's overextending dude and it's NOT because the economy is tight. It's because of greed and stupidity.

It's not rocket science. If you can't afford it, don't buy it or splurge but then cut corners somewhere else. Most people manage their finances that way. Hey if an individual can't control their spending and goes hellaciously into debt, I really don't give a crap because it really doesn't affect me. When the GOVERNMENT can't control it THAT is different story.

Oh Geez is right. Look at my post. I said under Obama they have continued to diminish. My request remains the same: please tell FOX News and the Tea Party this. The rhetoric is all about his elitist taxes that cripple the MC. That's why these MC people are all out there with whacky hats and signs that make no sense.

This isn't about what FOX News and the Tea Party have said but rather the BS that was being spouted in the opening Video. I'm pretty certain that the guy doing the "follow the dots" isn't a tea bagger and probably doesn't work for FOX. It was just another rant blaming the tax cuts for the rich for the entirety of our deficit.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer I really don't care what the teabaggers think at all. Period. The teabaggers weren't in the original video and unless one of us is a closet teabagger who hasn't come out yet, exactly HOW is anything they say germane to this discussion? Does the fact that in your estimation the tea baggers have it wrong lend any special weight to the BS spouted by Mr Follow the dots in the video? Don't think so.

If you don't care about teabaggers you should, as they are adding to the misinformation with the economy. Not to mention doing a stellar job of making the right-wing look bad. The chart you posted may educate them about taxes, is all. Please show it to them.

As for the video, take another look at the thread. People are discussing alot more than the content of the video. I personally am discussing the title "Economy", having watched the video and then responded to something RTB said. You then responded to my post, of which I responded to yours. See how this works? It's like following the dots.

In all honesty, I really don't get your point about mortgage debt being insurmountable, and quite frankly I think it's wrong. I can tell you that 99.75% of all credit worthy mortgage holders do NOT think it's insurmountable. The other 0.25% might agree since that's the current default rate for non sub prime mortgages.

How can you not understand something then think it's wrong? Or is it because you don't understand it that it becomes wrong by default? IRDK. Btw those figures are awesome.

Okay, there are specific situations where overextending might be warranted for specific individuals. But the majority of people EVEN in this economy are NOT overextended. True there are more people in trouble but that is due primarily to the sub-prime mortgages and people who REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO BORROW THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE BEING APPROVED FOR MORTGAGE LOANS DUE TO RELAXED LENDING STANDARDS.

Of course there are. As for the majority of people in this economy not being overextended, I think you are out of touch. But then, you go on to say there are more people in trouble now as if this is something entirely different.

And what happens when the people who are lending you all this money start to say "Uhhh, sorry, no more - your credit is no good." Do you honestly think this debt merry-go-round can continue forever?

When I originally said this you agreed that some borrowing was necessary - expected, almost. Now you're talking about infinite borrowing, which is different.

Nonsense. The majority of people can and DO live within their means - always have and probably always will. Not everyone certainly - there ARE some people who can NOT manage their money, but that's ALWAYS been true too.

Many do, but many don't. People are silly with money. Credit lines etc. are the enablers to living beyond your means. There are far more of these people now than ever before.

Homeowners who took advantage of their equity and added a second mortgage through a strategic refinance in order to get cash for medical bills, home improvements, cars, and other large expenses have ended up in many cases with proportionally more debt than their homes are worth. While I can see the need to cover unforseen medical bills and possibly major home repairs, taking out a second for a car, vacation, swimming pool or some other "gotta have it item" is criminally stupid. THAT's overextending dude and it's NOT because the economy is tight. It's because of greed and stupidity. It's not rocket science. If you can't afford it, don't buy it or splurge but then cut corners somewhere else. Most people manage their finances that way. Hey if an individual can't control their spending and goes hellaciously into debt, I really don't give a crap because it really doesn't affect me. When the GOVERNMENT can't control it THAT is different story.

These paragraphs I tend to agree with but the relevance escapes me, other than them being somewhat ancedotal in nature. I'll nod my head though, just 'cuz.

This isn't about what FOX News and the Tea Party have said but rather the BS that was being spouted in the opening Video. I'm pretty certain that the guy doing the "follow the dots" isn't a tea bagger and probably doesn't work for FOX. It was just another rant blaming the tax cuts for the rich for the entirety of our deficit.

You don't see how someone blaming tax cuts for the rich has anything to do with teabaggers or Fox News? They take the opposite stance and are constantly arguing against this point in their rallies, talkshows, debates etc. Not sure how mentioning the opposing rhetoric from those nudnicks could be perceived as having no place here. Especially since you yourself are voicing your own opposing views. Not a huge leap to make here.

[Cerek]

The teabaggers aren't adding any more misinformation than the guy in the video and those on the left that keep blaming the economy on the super rich.

And there is nothing wrong with having the goal of living debt-free, because it IS possible to do. You just have to realize you can't buy every shiny new thing that catches your eye.

My mom owns her house and both cars she drives - debt free. I also own the car I drive - bought and paid for. Aside from monthly bills, the only debt I have are my student loans (for getting my teacher license) and hospital bills due to my recent bad health. Until the first of April, my student loans were the only "debt" I had and I'm looking into ways to get the overall amount reduced. In the meantime, I can - and do - afford my monthly payments.

I did lose the house Princess and I bought to foreclosure, but there were a lot of factors that led to that; a renter who simply stopped paying rent, Princess refusing to help out with the mortgage when the payments got behind, and the real estate agent who (although she is a personal friend) only showed the house 3-4 times in 3 years.

Now there are some things *I* could have done about that situation, but didn't. In hindsight, I should have evicted the renter more than a year ago. I took her to court and won the judgment, but she promised to get the payments caught up (she was only 1.5 months behind at that time). So I gave her a second chance. Surprise, surprise...she never followed through and I was too soft-hearted to kick her and her kids out right then. Secondly, I could have listed my house on Craig's List and other sites myself to generate more interest. Would that have produced an offer on the house? No way to know for sure, but it wouldn't have hurt to try. The house we had was very nice and we dropped the price considerably over the years, but never had a single offer brought to the table, even after I switched real estate companies. So I lost the house and my credit rating has taken the hit for it, but that's the way it goes.

As for "needing" credit, I don't really. I've lived without a credit card of any kind for more than 5 years now and, even though I didn't have a steady job for more than 2.5 years, I'm still in the BEST financial shape of my life. Why? Because I don't buy anything I don't NEED.

The banks did help create the economy spiral with all the sub-prime mortgages and ignoring of bad credit rates, but the consumers bear the same amount of responsibility for buying things on credit (such as larger, fancier houses) than they could afford in the first place. You do NOT have to have a $500,000 home to have a roof over your head and there ARE alternatives out there. The housing market has been in the dumps for the last 3 years. I know because it started to crash right after we put our house on the market. But when that happens, you ADJUST to the situation. For us, it meant dropping the price of the house in an effort to keep it comparable to similar homes and keep interest generated.

It also meant shopping for a house we could AFFORD in the first place. We started looking at homes 2 years before we were actually ready to buy and, by doing that, we found the exact house we wanted for a price we could afford then (and now if we had stayed married).

We had an economic boon in the 90's due to the stock market. That and the greed of the 80's led the current generations to think they are SUPPOSED to have anything they see or want. And if they can't afford to pay cash, they'll just put it on the credit card. Other than the sub-prime fiasco, banks are NOT to blame for over-extending their credit. Yes, they offered them the means to do it, but the consumer still bears the responsibility for saying "You know what, I really can't afford to do that, so I'll just pass on your offer".

Even when I had a credit card, my balance was never more than $500. Why? Because I knew that was about the max I could afford to pay back.

As for gas prices, Euro has been paying prices this high for YEARS. I remember when we were complaining about gas being more than $1.50 per gallon and IW members in England were saying "We've been paying $3.50 per gallon for petrol for years". As Micah pointed out, American car manufacturers continue producing gas-hog vehicles, but that is only because American consumers insist on still buying them.

We also DID lose a lot of industries overseas. That is due to several factors as well, but the bottom line is the fact that it was cheaper to produce the goods in another country and ship them back here than to make them here in the first place. Unions don't bear all the blame for that, but they do bear some of it. The auto-workers in Detroit were making upwards of $75/hour and insisting on more several years ago. When a company can go overseas and find workers that will do the same job for $10-15/hour, that isn't a hard decision to make. The textile industries also left the country in droves during the 90's. That wasn't because of unions, though, because the textile workers certainly were NOT getting paid huge hourly wages.

On the other hand, several foreign auto companies are beginning to build factories HERE. Volkswagon is opening a huge factory in Chattanooga, TN and (IIRC) Mercedes is building a plant somewhere in the northern GA area. Those companies are discovering it cost less to build factories over here, but in more rural areas than in large urban hubs. Why? Because those rural areas are looking for jobs and offering companies big incentives to build there.

Still, the bottom line is the fact our own gov't is the worst "consumer" of all, never even considering the concept of NOT spending more money than you have. Their budget talks consist of "We spent this much last year and we need to increase that by this much due to inflation and other factors this year". They've already spent the money that MIGHT have come from the taxes on the super-rich, even though they never got it. And, yes, even a blind person should be able to see that China could literally "buy" the U.S. at any time now simply by calling in our debt to them. But do we try to reduce that debt at all? Not from what I've seen.

So the gov't acts like the general consumer. I see it, I want it, I have to have it. And if I can't afford it, then I'll just borrow the money to buy it. That is acceptable in ISOLATED or RARE instances, but it only works if you STOP the spending after buying that item and start paying off your the debt you just incurred. Instead, general and gov't consumers say "OK, I got THAT item, NOW I want this new item, which means I need to borrow more money for that."

The teabaggers aren't responsible at all for the current economy and, in fact, seem to be advocating the idea of actually living within your means. While it may not be possible for every person to live completely debt free, that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate and sensible goal to work towards. But hey, don't let irrelevant facts get in the way of a good bashing session to muddy the waters.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Gabrielles blades I dont think everyone should have health insurance, instead i think everyone should have health care; cut out the middle crook. Just have gov run hospitals. We already have them, but theyre only for prisoners which one man apparently has taken advantage of recently.

We also have VA hospitals that are run by the gov't. Ask any veteran you might know how well they think that system is working for them. Unless they live in the city where the hospital is located, they are looking at an all day commute and several hours wait for a routine doctor visit...and it is a different doctor each time they go. Services have to be scheduled months in advance (similar to the health care system in Canada) and they rarely see the same doctor twice when they go. Now the VA system DOES work well in some instances. My maternal grandfather was a WWII veteran (and former POW). he spent the last year of his life in the VA hospital and all of his care was free, but before he became terminal, I don't recall him ever going there for routine treatments or checkups.

I've said for years that some governments can operate effective health care systems, I just don't believe OUR government can do it. And gov't health care is NOT "free", it is paid for with higher taxes. Thus, the general public STILL pays for their health care out of their own pocket, it's just done indirectly in gov't run systems.

[ElfBane]

Socialized medicine should (and hopefully one day, will) be a Right. NO ONE should be financially ruined because of health. We should make medicine free, and not count the cost. I realize (and everyone else on this BB realizes it) that socialized medicine is paid for by increased taxes (your knee can jerk now), so please don't say that again.

Education should be free, or heavily subsidized. Until that happens I don't want to hear politicians OF ANY STRIPE, tell us about Education's Importance. Because they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.

Micah and Cerek: Good to see you back. The endless sea of right-wing BS over at the Oasis does get old, and here you will get lively debate.

[robertthebard]

Governments are as much consumers as anyone else. There is no special cutoff for spending money that says private citizens are consumers and governments are not. The primary difference is where the money comes from. I punched a time clock for 30 years, and paid the government to tax me for it, and almost every aspect of my life. The government made their money off my work, and off the goods and services that I required to maintain my home and job. Groceries are taxed, my work truck was taxed, my fuel was taxed, my home was taxed, and yet, even after all this, multiplied by all the other working stiffs in my income range alone, the government can't spend within their means, even after tapping into money I paid them so that I'd have money when I was ready to retire: Social Security. Employers are even taxed for having employees. Unemployment insurance, and yet, the government can't spend within their means, but the economy's downfalls are due to private citizens?

No. It's entirely possible to live on credit w/out overextending your income. If I paid $500.00 a month rent, and got a loan for a house for $500.00 a month, I am both living on credit, and living within my means. I took the money I was paying to a landlord and started paying it to a bank to pay them for loaning me the money to buy a house. This is, however, what is wrong with our economy, the government decided that people needed to borrow more money to stimulate spending, and made it possible for people to do so. To me this breaks down to: Hey, we, the gov't, can spend more than we make and get away with it, we might as well allow the citizens to do so too.

[Timber Loftis]

I want some of what Cerek's smoking.

Tax revenues were severely cut in the 80's on Retard Reagan's ignorant theory of trickle-down. Most of the spending increases (yes, tax rolls went down, spending went up) has been in the military, obviously, barring a slight dip when a very sensible President Clinton tried to start doing the downsizing we need.

Spending cuts are mathematically not possible of being the entire solution. So, when some idiot like the Orange Boner guy says tax hikes are not off the table, well he's not living in reality.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer Middle class tax rates are at historical LOWS.

So is their pay scale.

And, that is such a red herring. EVERYONE's taxes are at historical lows, which is part of the problem.